I had made a goal of 100 for the year of 2017 and have already reached it.

So I’m pretty excited about that.

Thank you to anyone who subbed through this blog. I’m hoping to do a 100 subscriber video in the near future. Maybe a Q&A or something, so if you have any ideas or any questions you’d like me to answer, please leave them in the comment section.

In this video I respond to a believer who says he knows the real reason why atheists don’t believe in his god. I hope you enjoy it.

I ran across a video asking what has YouTube atheism ever achieved. I thought the person asking the question was doing so in a genuine manner so I decided to make a video response. It’s only four and a bit minutes long. I’ll insert it at the bottom of this post.

Marvin also made me some more avatar poses and he says he’s sending me some more. I’m looking forward to seeing the surprised pose.

So here they are.

Let me know what you think about the avatar poses and video. Do you think online atheism in general has achieved anything or do you think it’s a waste of time?

Well, I think (maybe it wasn’t me but someone else or a combination of more than one person or incident) I broke the Coalition of the Brave with my evil insistence that the writer back up her assertion that she was using facts…when she wasn’t.

The conversation we had was taken down shortly after, and only comments that agreed with the author were left up.

So unfortunately, I can’t show you what the original conversation was about. It had something to do with Melania Trump and fashion designers refusing her service.

But…I can show you how the site owner is now apologizing because he (again, I think he’s referencing me) had the audacity to say that I had made a valid point. At the time, he admitted that his writer had used an unfortunate word choice. Since then, I guess he’s lost that writer as well as another one.

Let’s get into this new post.

I should have said this ages ago. I’m going to say it now.

This Coalition has recently lost two fantastic contributors because I didn’t stick up for them. Why didn’t I stick up for them, I hear you ask?

Oh, but why did you not stick up for them?

I tell myself it’s because I don’t like confrontation, but that’s bullshit. I did it on the grounds of white male privilege. Not knowingly, but that’s the reason.

Holy crap. Bloody hell. You’re going to apologize for being white and male. That somehow makes your point invalid?

What you originally did (in my case) was fine – you admitted that you thought they were wrong to assert something as fact that wasn’t fact. That has nothing to do with your skin color or gender.

Snap out of the white guilt, mate. Being white and male isn’t something to be ashamed of any more than any other skin color. They are arbitrary attributes, and you didn’t choose to be born white or male. You’re a person and your opinions are just as valid as someone else’s, regardless of their skin color.

It sounds like you’re referencing more than one case, but people shouldn’t need protection from disagreement. A public blog isn’t a safe space and if you’re going to blog about controversial topics, you should expect to be disagreed with.

It’s all well and good offering platitudes and nodding and saying you understand, but unless you’ve walked in another person’s shoes, you can’t claim to truly understand their experiences. I am not black, nor am I a woman – and I’m never going to be either of those. When they came to me with concerns about being harassed and belittled, I should have tried to see things from their perspective.

Trying to see things from anthers perspective is a good thing to do no matter who you happen to be talking to. It’s called empathy and self-reflection. It’s also why we have language. We can talk to one another and explain how our experiences impact us as individuals.

However, being black, white, gay, heterosexual, man, woman etc doesn’t mean your opinion is more valid than someone else’s. Being disagreed with is not the same as being harassed.

And maybe she was harassed. I don’t know what he’s referencing here, but I find it hard to believe that someone that seems as reasonable and mild-mannered as Darth would sit on his hands and do nothing if someone were truly being harassed.

But that’s just my opinion and certainly not a fact.

Whether the people doing the harassing knew what they were doing, I don’t know. It’s entirely possible that, like me, they weren’t consciously doing it, and just couldn’t perceive their actions through a different perspective. Sometimes our privilege blinds us. We are guilty of institutionalised sexism, racism and bigotry, without even realising it.

Nah, mate. You’re basically saying people are guilty of thought crimes. You don’t get to assert that everyone is racist, sexist and bigoted.

That’s not how it works. It might work that way in Regressive Land, where everyone is valued based on how many oppression’s they can claim, but not in reality.

Oh yeah, and if your referencing me in this part, please know I was consciously disagreeing with that author. I knew exactly what I was doing. When people say that something is a fact when it isn’t, I challenge them on it.

Then Pink comes into the picture. And damn if I didn’t find myself cheering.

Hell yes, Pink. I think you’re missing the point though – these people (besides the blog owner, I think, who seems reasonable) don’t want discussion. They want yes men and women to nod and tell them how right they are and how oppressed they must be.

Pink is absolutely right here, but the response he gets is priceless. He’s told that he’s part of the problem because he’s a man.

Check your privilege, Pink! Don’t you know you’re a white male!

Pink is now being problematic. He’s part of the problem.

This is my favorite bit here. This is exactly what I told the site owner previously.

If you want to run a site based on discussion, you have to allow dissenting opinions and in my humble opinion, he should find writers who hold a differing viewpoint from his regular contributors to showcase a different point of view. Otherwise, you’re running an echo-chamber.

Like Pink says here, if you want to ‘change minds’ you need to engage people in discussion. Not create an echo-chamber.

Last but not least, good job on being the voice of reason in this case, Pink.

If you’re a feminist reading this blog, you’re probably going to think that this is just some loon in the wilderness, but I submit to you that if you’re following an ideology that literally teaches that all men are oppressors (the dreaded Patriarchy) and all women are oppressed, then it should come as no surprise to you when some people think it makes sense to treat men this way.

Treat men what way, GC?

Like this:

Before we do anything, the very first measure to adopt is to take all men out of all positions of decision-making immediately, and actually out of any kind of social, professional position whatsoever.

Sounds like political, social, and economic equality to me.

All of men’s (alive and euthanised) belongings, property, resources and land will be confiscated from men and handed back to female care and supervision – property rights over land will be abolished. You can’t own land!

All men at least above 15 (or younger if very asocial) should live separately from women and children, on their own in small huts or studios, isolated from one another and scattered around so that women can keep an eye on them (they should never be in groups or packs, that would be illegal). So it would also be illegal for male adults to impose their presence on females, girls and children. Men would have to care for themselves on their own: food, laundry, etc. No male above his age of puberty would be allowed to receive any kind of service from a female. Their life expectancy would probably drop to the age of 40, but that’s how things should be. Women’s life expectancy without men would rise to 130 years at least.

Why not just put them in camps?

Oh yeah, we wouldn’t want to go too far.

PIV would be illegal too of course, as well as the initiation of any verbal or physical contact to women and girls or boy children, unless solicited by a woman for specific matters. I’m not sure what to do about boy children.

So unless you need them to reproduce, they’re free to die off as quickly as possible. Those boy children are troublesome. They’re not quite men so we can’t really imprison, torture and enslave them yet.

All in good time.

No man will be allowed to take any decision without female guidance. We know what happens when men decide on their own! DISASTER.

Men can’t be trusted to do anything. They shouldn’t be allowed any freedom whatsoever, and they won’t be allowed any agency of their own.

But what about fathers? Will they at least be able to help raise their children? Can we let them out of the concentration camps…errr…enforced living spaces, long enough for even a weekly visit with their kids?

Fathers’ rights will cease to exist. There is no such thing as fatherhood — as we all know, it’s a myth.

Guess not. We all know men are evil, sub-human animals who don’t care for their children.

What other parting words of wisdom do you have for us?

And seriously, killing animals you’ve raised yourself in a farm or keeping animals enclosed is cruel. I’m for the liberation of all farm and domestic animals. It’s up to them to decide whether they want to live with us or not, and they should be able to come and go freely.

How nice. So you can just allow men to die off at around age 40 and enslave them…but don’t hurt the animals!

Fuck off GC.

We all know men are below animals. They’re about as human as the chair your sitting on but a mite less useful.

Read an interesting post titled The Devil’s Ministry, and I wanted to comment on it. So let’s get started.

She starts her post with this:

The greatest and most effective lie of the Devil is the lie that he doesn’t exist!!! So many people are comfortable believing this lie, while he continues his ministry in their lives…leading them farther and farther away from the truth. If you don’t believe he exists, you won’t resist him, you won’t suspect him, you won’t watch out for him, and you won’t even know you are in danger! He’s got you right where he wants you.

So this is the crux of what I wanted to address. I could go on about how silly I think believing in the devil is but that’s not what I find interesting about this paragraph.

If not believing the devil exists is such a boon to his ‘ministry’, then why do Christians fight so hard to demonize atheists? I mean, if not believing works in the devil’s favor, why wouldn’t the same be true of Jesus?

Jesus could also influence our decisions – just like this supposed devil – because we don’t suspect his influence and don’t believe he exists. This would effectively make the atheist the most valuable of human players…right?

While Christians sit around and try to figure out what God meant when he inspired or wrote the bible; while they’re busy making thousands of sects, each of which believe something slightly different, God could be busy working on the blank slates of atheists.

According to Christian scripture, God is so much more powerful than the Devil. Shouldn’t he be better at this shadow game than his evil counterpart?

If however, you do believe there is such a thing as the Devil, or you suspect that there just might be, but you’re not altogether sure…you could get spooked by him. You might be afraid at the thought or idea of him. You might be weary of people who talk about him, afraid that he will suddenly show up and frighten you to death. However, because you are not altogether oblivious to his devices, he will work harder to trick you, through white lies.

I’m not sure what getting spooked by him would entail? If it works out to his advantage to remain unknown, why would he reveal himself? If this is such a powerful tool, why did God not realize it and use it to his own advantage?

I’m also not afraid of the thought or idea of him, because I don’t think he exists. Just like I’m not scared at the prospect of a dragon landing on my house and blowing me to smithereens.

Although…that would be cool. Not the smithereens part, but the dragon part…freaking awesome!

Just read a Christian post and I felt compelled to respond. It’s titled The Irony of Atheism, and you can read it in its entirety by following the link.

Let’s jump into what this bloke has to say.

Atheists claim that Atheism is not a religion because it is a disbelief in a supernatural being of any kind whether God or gods.

Strong start! Bravo!

Just a small correction though, you can be an atheist and believe in the supernatural. For example, you might believe in ghosts.

But still…strong start. Carry on.

However Atheism is itself a “Belief” that claims that God or gods do not exist that also requires of its adherents a “leap of Faith” without a single shred of evidence to support it

This is the sound of my face hitting palm.

Smack. Smack. Smack.

I’m going to move past this because it’s not really necessary to respond, in order to address the author’s larger point. I’m going to bite my tongue.

While Atheism removes God or gods from the equation Humanism – on the other hand – enthrones/substitutes man’s wisdom in the place once reserved for Divinity.

First off, you have to provide evidence that your scriptures are divine and not man-made. If they’re man-made, then how are they better than Humanism?

Humanism has the ability to change along with culture, scientific understanding and moral progress, while religion is either unable to, or is so slow to make, moral progress. Religion often impedes ethics, precisely because so many think it’s divinely inspired.

If you truly believe scripture is handed down by God, there is no good argument against a divine being. The book is right and the only way to fight such a system is to cherry pick verses or reinterpret the text.

A secular religion that is undermined by its adherents willful blindness in regards to man’s fallen nature, which leads to the false conclusion that man has no need of redemption.

I think most people accept that they’re not perfect and humanity as a whole isn’t either.

However, that doesn’t mean we need redemption from an invisible super-deity. It means we need to be aware of that and strive to improve ourselves and our collective lot here on this little blue planet.

Consequently any movement or political system based upon Atheism and Humanism – Marxism, Communism and/or Catholicism: Humanism masquerading as a religion fo example – without fail end up enslaving and persecuting the very one’s they claim to represent and serve.

I agree with you on Marxism and Communism. We are seeing a resurgence in cultural Marxism right now in the West, and I believe it’s screwing crap up, but that’s another post entirely.

Again, I’m going to resist the urge to go off on a tangent.

But…how did Catholicism make your list of atheistic political movements? That’s freaking absurd. Catholicism is definitely religious in nature.

I also want to point out that you can be religious and embrace Marxism or Communism. You can also be an atheist, like me for example, who wholeheartedly rejects the notion of collectivism. I’m for individualism, which is directly opposed to collectivism. I am not an ally of Marxism or Communism.

Making Atheists no better than those Christians in name only, who give full reign to the evil lurking within their own unregenerate hearts, in spite of their profession to believe in the Father Above.

The problem is that your rigid ideology shuts down conversation and we believe it isn’t correct. Why would I want to be governed by a system of rules that I find archaic, untrue and often cruel and barbaric?

I don’t.

One need only to look at the historical record of Russia and East Germany under the reign of Communism: A political system based upon Atheism and Humanism. Whose leaders enslaved and murdered their own people and allowed their air, land and water to become heavily polluted with industrial wastes.

Pretty sure we’re not doing a great job in the whole pollution part either, mate.

Again, I agree that atheism doesn’t shield people from bad ideologies. They can not believe in God(s) and still embrace other social or political ideologies that might be harmful.

However, those political dogmas you mention are themselves ideologies and they’re not based on atheism. Let’s say hypothetically that everyone agrees both Marxism and Communism are bad.

Communism = bad.

Marxism = bad.

Atheism is separate from either. As you rightly pointed out when you began this post, it’s merely the lack of belief in God(s).

People are complex. For example, you can be an atheist and embrace the teachings of Jesus. You can be a Christian and believe that Communism is better than Capitalism and collectivism is better than individualism.